Holding

A rape victim's testimony can be sufficient for conviction without external corroboration if it inspires confidence and is supported by medical evidence and the FIR.

Summary

The State of Orissa prosecuted Dambru Naiko and another accused for kidnapping and gang rape of a village girl, Manguri Bhotruni, under IPC sections 366, 376 and 34. The victim identified the two respondents in an identification parade and medical examination showed injuries to her private parts, which the trial court accepted, convicting them to three years' rigorous imprisonment each. The High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the victim's testimony required corroboration and that the absence of multiple injuries indicated consent. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that corroboration of a rape victim's testimony is not mandatory if the evidence inspires confidence and is supported by medical findings and the FIR. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, restored the trial court's convictions, and ordered the respondents to surrender and serve their sentences.

Issues considered

Whether the testimony of a rape victim must be corroborated by other evidence to sustain a conviction.
Whether the absence of multiple injuries on the victim negates the occurrence of non‑consensual gang rape.
Whether identification parade testimony by the victim is reliable in the absence of corroboration.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 366, s. 376

Subjects

kidnappinggang rapecorroborationvictim testimonyidentification paradeIPC sections 34, 366, 376evidenceconsentmiscarriage of justice

Judgment

STATE OF ORISSA A
v.
DAMBURU NAIKO AND ANR.

MARCH 31, 1992

[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] B

Indian Penal Code, 1860:

Sections 34, 366 and 376-Kidnapping and gang rape-Co"oboration
"--- ;..... of victim's evidence-Whether necessary, when her evidence inspires con-
fuience to be trothfu/--Offence committed in broad day light-victim iden-
c
-- -,..-- tifying accused in Identification Parade and medical evidence and First
Information Report c01roborating injuries on her plivate parts-Whether High
Court justified in rejecting victim's evidence.

The two respondents and two others were charged under Sections D
366/34 and 376 read with 34 I.P.C. for kidnapping and committing rape on
P.W.1. In the Identification Parade, conducted by P.W.13, the Executive
Magistrate, P.W.1, the victim, identified the two respondents and one other
accused. The trial court accepted her evidence and convicted the two
respondents and sentenced them to undergo three years' rigorous im- E
,.__, prisonment on each count.

The trial court acquitted the other two accused and this became final
since there was no appeal against it. The Sessions Court confirmed the
sentences of the two respondent.
F
On appeal, the High Court acquitted the two respondents on the
grounds that P.W.l. identifying the respondents could not be relied upon,
~

\ that there was no corroboration to her evidence, and that when there was
gang rape there would be several injuries on the person of the victim, which
were absent, and th.erefore, she was a consenting party.
G
Allowing the appeal of the State, this Court,

- }-
HELD: 1.1 It is not necessary that there should be corroboration to
the evidence of the victim of rape. If the e~idence inspires confidence to be
truthful, that itself would be sufficient to convict the accused. [396D]
393
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A 1.2 In the instant case, there is no necessity for any corroboration of
P.W.l's evidence. She was a simple village girl and she would not leave out
her own assaillants and implicate falsely other innocent persons with the
. allegation that she was raped by them. Though she was a stranger to the
accused she is the victim of dastardly offences of kidnapping and gang rape
and it was done in broad day time. Therefore, when she was kidnapped into
B forest by the accused, she had opportunity to see them, though later her eyes
~ere closed with a piece of cloth. When she was made to lie down on the
gro'nnd at the threat of her life and gang rape was committed, she WclS
absolutely helpless. The medical evidence amply corroborates that she had
injuries on her private parts and so there is yet enough resistence put up by
c her to the gang rape committed one after the another. When it was done at
the threat of her life she cannot be expected to go on resisting except to
resign to her fate and succumb to their assault. P.W.1 also ide~tified the ~--
respondents in the identification parade. She had enough opportunity to
identify the persons who committed rape on her. Even if corroboration is
D necessary, the injuries on her private parts; medical evidence of the doctor
and her first information report provide such corroboration. The evidence
of P .W.1 bas to be accepted as truthful. [396B-E]

1.3 It is, therefore, not possible to accept the reasoning of the High
Court in rejecting P.W.l'!I evidence and acquitting the two respondents.
E Besides, the High Court 11iso did not make any attempt to disbelieve her
evidence on its own merits. [396A, F]

1.4 In these circumstances, the casual and mechanical approach,
without regard to human probabilities, and the consequent acquittal by
the High Court resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The Judgment of
F the High Court and order of acquittal of respondents is set aside. The
judgments and convictions and sentences recorded by the trial court, and
affirmed by the Sessions Court, are restored. The respondents should
surrender and serve out the sentences. [396F, G]
j-
G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
567 of 1983.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.82 of the Orissa High
Court in Crl. Revn. No. 152/81. ~

H C.S.Sromovasa Rao for the Appellant.
STATE v. DAMBURU NAIKO [RAMASWAMY, J.] 395

A.P.Mohanty for the Respondents. A

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. RAMASWAMY, J. The two respondent Dambru Naiko (Al) and
B. Sankara Rao (A2) and two others were charged in Sessions Case No.
B
6/78 of Asst. Sessions Judge, Jeypore for offences un.der section 366/34 and
376 read with s. 34 I.P.C. kidnapping and committing rape of Manguri
Bhotruni, PW.l on October 21, 1978 at about 4.00 p.m. By judgment dated
November 26, 1978 the trial court convicted the respondents and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on each
count and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He acquitted C
the other two which became final. On appeal it was confirmed by the
Sessions Court. In Crl. Revision No. 152 of 1981 by judgment dated April
19,1982, the High Court acquitted them of the charges. Thus this appeal
by special leave.
D
The case of prosecution is that on the fateful day the victim Bhotruni
alongwith other girls, PWs. 2 to 4 went to Papadahandi to witness Dasahara
festival. At about 4.00 p.m., while they were returning home, PW .1, the
victim was ahead of them and when they reached inside the forest, the
appellants and two others gagged the mouth of PW.1 and kidnapped into
the forest, covered her eyes with a piece of cloth and threatened to kill her E
if she would raise cries. They made her to lie down on the ground and
raped her one after another. PWs. 2 to 4 ran back Papadahandi and
reported, to the police on duty in the festival, of the incidence and PW.5,
the constable came alongwith them. They found the victim's eyes COYered
with a piece of cloth and that she was crying. She was taken to Papadahan-
di. She laid the complaint (Ext. P.1). The accused were arrested on F
October 31, 1977 and in the identification parade conducted by the Execu-
tive Magistrate, PW. 13, PW.l to 4 identified the accused, PW.1 identified
the respondents and one another, PW.2 to 4 identified some as per Ex.
P.10 report the details of which are not necessary as it is admitted by them
that before the identification parade was conducted PWs.2 to 4 had oppor- G
tunity to see the accused. So the trial count did not rely upon the evidence
of PWs.2 to 4. But it accepted the evidence of PW.1, the victim and
convicted the respondents. The High Court acquitted the respondents on
the grounds, namely, that PW.1 identifying these respondents would not be
relied on and that there is no corroboration to her evidence. When there
is a gang rape there could be several injuries on the person of the victim H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.

A which are absent. Therefore she was a consenting prufy. We are at a loss
to understand the reasoning of the High Court The vehement contention
of the learned counsel for the respondents that the reasoning given by the
High Court is cogent and needs no interference absolutely lacks substance.
Though PW.1 was a stranger to the accused is the victim of dastardly
offences of kidnapping and gang rape and it was done in broad day time.
B Therefore, when she was kidnapped into forest by the accused she had
opportunity to see them though later her eyes were closed with a piece of
cloth. When she was made to lie down on the ground at the threat of her
life and gang rape was committed, she was absolutely helpless. The medical
evidence amply corroborates that she had injuries on her private parts and
so there is yet enough resistence put up by her to the gang rape committed
c one after the another. When it was done at the threat of her life, she cannot
be expected to go on resisting except to resign to her fate and succumb to
their assault. PW.1 also identified the respondents in the identification
parade. Since there is no appeal against the others, we need not go into
their acquittal. But suffice to state that she had enough opportunity to
D identify the persons who committed rape on her. It is not necessary that
there would be corroboration to the evidence of the victim of rape. If her
evidence inspires confidence to be truthful that itself would be sufficient
to convict the accused. We need not see corroboration to the evidence of
PW.1. S.he was a simple village girl and she will not leave out her own
assaillants and implicate falsely other innocent persons with the allegation
E that she was raped by them. Even if we seek for corroboration the injuries
on.her private parts; medical evidence of the doctor and her first informa-
tion report provide such corroboration. We have carefully scanned her
evidence. We wholly accept her evidence as truthful. The High Court also
did not make any attempt to disbelieve her evidence on its own merits. In
F these circumstances the casual and mechanical approach, without regard
to human probabilities, and the consequent acquittal by the High Court
-
resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The approach adopted by the High
Court shall not be allowed to stand for a moment. The appeal is accord-
ingly allowed. The judgment of High Court and the order of acquittal of
the respondents is set aside. The judgments and convictions and sentences
G recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the Sessions Courts are
restored and the respondents should surrender and serve out the senten·
ces.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed.